Atheists: Most deserving of Heaven?

[Karmashock]

But then the question becomes "Why believe?"
And "Why should others believe?"

Try and answer those without starting from the assumption that God exists.

Makes societies stronger... cultures stronger... makes organizing and keeping order easier... answers a lot of questions that can't be answered...

There are millions of reasons religion is positive even if god doesn't exist. Societies without religion have a vacuum and are open to exterior forces that do have them.

People like to believe… so you might as well have them believe in something positive.

 

[Sarkus]

Okay - then what you're really saying is that religion has a positive effect on society - whether as an individual or by giving the governing body a means to control.

And this is the reason for which it was created in the first instance.

I don't think too many people will disagree that religion serves a purpose and can be beneficial - but it is purely psychological in benefit. And this certainly does not offer any evidence for the existence of god.

Why not have a non-deist religion?
Surely that would be preferable - in that it wouldn't rely on the unprovable?

Makes societies stronger... cultures stronger... makes organizing and keeping order easier... answers a lot of questions that can't be answered...

This is the reason that religion was created by MAN - in order to control MAN - to bribe him through reward and fear to behave himself.

There are millions of reasons religion is positive even if god doesn't exist.

Not disputed by me. I merely hold that the concept of theism is unscientific, irrational and illogic. The rewards are there for all to see - but so is other forms of brainwashing.

People like to believe… so you might as well have them believe in something positive.

And this proves God?
Again, noone's disputing the obvious benefits of religion - although there are also drawbacks - as seen throughout history - but why theism? Why a belief in something that will never be proven?


Hypothetically, if I could offer you an alternative to Christianity that offered all of the same benefits but without the need to believe in an unprovable deity, would you still hold to your religion?

Hypothetically, if I took away all of the benefits of your religion, would you still hold to it?

 

[Karmashock]

None deist religions aren't as strong. Therefore the values aren't as strong. Therefore the effects are less.

it's like dietGod... Same great taste but less filling... do as you will.


All I'm doing is defend religion from the perspective that god doesn't exist. I DO believe God exists.


There is nothing illogical about doing something that works. As to science, that's about empiricism... and empiricism doesn't say you need to understand it. It says things can be good just because they are.


I HAVE SAID OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT YOU CAN"T PROVE OR DISPROVE GOD! YOU"RE MISSING THE WHOLE POINT!


Hypothetically, perhaps but I would be more tempted to violate the moral rules.

Hypothetically, probably not.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

But then the question becomes "Why believe?"
And "Why should others believe?"

Try and answer those without starting from the assumption that God exists. ”

Makes societies stronger... cultures stronger... makes organizing and keeping order easier... answers a lot of questions that can't be answered...

There are millions of reasons religion is positive even if god doesn't exist. Societies without religion have a vacuum and are open to exterior forces that do have them.

so what your saying karma, is unless society is delusional it can not function.

 

[okinrus]

A religious answer to that is that that's how Sky-Daddy or -Mommy wants it, or that ya get yer own reserved little spot in that cloud up over there. An Atheistic answer would be that it's just a good thing to do.

Why do religious people life a moral life? I'm sure they give many reasons, but I'll bet their only real reason is that they want to be in their religion's version of Heaven for all eternity. Some probably don't care about being good just for the hell of it. They just know that that's how to get into Heaven. They're taking advantage of a bribe.

Athelwulf, not to expect anything is what Jesus said. You can argue this point if you want, but the facts are the notion of grace avoids this thought, at least for the long term. But sometimes, and this shouldn't happen to option, you will attempt to rationalize doing something wrong, and in the spur of the moment it's useful to accept purely on benefits of following God.

 

[Silas]

In answer to the hypothetical question about swapping for a non-Theistic religion, Karmashock said

Hypothetically, perhaps but I would be more tempted to violate the moral rules.

This means that you hold back from committing sins because it's part of a rule book that you have been trained to follow. I won't presuppose your reason for doing so - maybe you do it because you're scared of hellfire, or maybe you do it simply because you love God, and God set up the rules, and you can't show that you love God if you break his rules (irrespective of ending up in Hell).

But an atheist, faced with a moral choice does without either the fear of extreme agony for eternity or the need to demonstrate love to some Father- (or Mother-)figure. At the basis of all morality is the basic question, "Does this action I contemplate cause harm to someone else?" Those are the only moral choices that really matter. And in fact the choice is generally made (in either direction) by reference to that question rather than, well, "WWJD?" by people of faith as well as people without faith. Everything is a matter of weight, of pros and cons.

On the lowest level, lets say you have the opportunity to commit adultery. The reason that adultery is bad is not because God has ordained that Man and Woman shall be as One, and that consequently adulterers are stoned to death or otherwise censured. Adultery is bad because it causes pain to the innocent party or parties. It can lead to the break up of marriage which is frequently almost intolerably painful to the children involved. A religious person who only considered the rules might consider that it's worth while a risk to take - risking eternal damnation but possibly escaping that by demonstrating sufficient repentance and penance after the fact. An atheist does not have any such get-out-of-jail-free clause only has the genuine moral issues of "who is going to get hurt?" Of course, in reality I don't believe that religious people (or at least the vast majority of them) consider God as their first priority either. If they succumb, possibly they think about God and what He might think afterwards - but in the process of succumbing they were really balancing the same moral choices as the atheist (who's no less likely to succumb, by the way, in case you think I'm making the case that all atheists are moral paragons).

Moral choices get harder and surely more frequent, the more authority you have. If you have people's lives in your hand, moral choices come up all the time - and again, I believe that religious people and atheists make those choices based on the same balances, though phrased slightly differently "what is the best outcome for the most people?" A religiouis person could absolve themselves from responsibility by highlighting some clause in Leviticus or whatever that might be interpreted as not wilfully depriving someone of their living. But they don't - like the atheist they have to base their decision on the ultimate good, regardless of what God has to say on the issue. If making someone redundant helps the company weather a bad patch and avoid bankruptcy, then clearly the majority of people have been considered over and above the needs of the individual.

If you get to Presidential level, there is scarcely a decision you can make that won't have a bad impact on some level. From The American President

Aide: What you did tonight was very presidential.
The President: Leon, somewhere in Libya right now, a janitor's working the night shift at Libyan Intelligence headquarters. He's going about doing his job... because he has no idea, in about an hour he's going to die in a massive explosion. He's just going about his job, because he has no idea that about an hour ago I gave an order to have him killed. You've just seen me do the least presidential thing I do.​

No doubt George W. Bush prayed to God for guidance when making similar decisions, but the answers he got boiled down to balancing political gain for his people against the lives of 100,000 Iraqis. I personally have no doubt that his decision was wrong in view of the consequences to life, but maybe that would not square with God's viewpoint. Maybe there is a God who does answer prayers, and God told him what to do. That would put me in direct conflict with God because I feel my position is more moral than His. That doesn't mean I'm right. But it does mean that some morals that supposedly come from God or the Bible, I find morally reprehensible.

(additional note - I disagree with GWB's decision, but I'm not claiming he committed an absolute moral wrong when he made it. I wouldn't want to be the one to have to make that kind of decision.)

 

[SnakeLord]

It’s common information. No major archeological society disagrees with this point. Jesus was a real man.

Sorry, you're wrong.

 

[Karmashock]

so what your saying karma, is unless society is delusional it can not function.

Merely that societies need identities that cold soulless nihilism can't give them. Such systems have societies that fall apart. There is no group identity and so people just act in their own best interest. This has much the same effect as every cell in your body deciding to do what is personally best for it. You'd cease to be a human being after about 2 minutes.

You need something to hold society together... if you look at what neocons do, all of it reinforces social and cultural identity. You may and likely do disagree with said policies, but at least with this prism you might begin to understand them. For well over 50 years there has been a growing feelings that the very core of this civilization has been unraveling. The above actions are being taken to rewind the system and perhaps even make it self winding into the future.

The point is that you must at all times avoid extremes. Extremes are nearly always bad. a society with no professed identity, if taken to an extreme, has no group identity and ceases to be a group. On the flip side, a society with too strong an identity become a mere puppet to that vision and so cannot adapt, grow, or innovate. Humans are attracted to absolutes for some reason, but it almost always leads to our ruin.

We must thread the needle. I think most of the comments that have been made in this forum are correct, but only to an extent. As nearly any social property approaches the absolute, it becomes increasingly unstable and destructive. I can't at the moment think of anything that is good in the absolute.


the philosophers of the west call this moderation... the philosophers of the east call it balance. Call it what you will, absolutes are nearly always to be avoided.
============================

In answer to the hypothetical question about swapping for a non-Theistic religion, Karmashock said This means that you hold back from committing sins because it's part of a rule book that you have been trained to follow. I won't presuppose your reason for doing so - maybe you do it because you're scared of hellfire, or maybe you do it simply because you love God, and God set up the rules, and you can't show that you love God if you break his rules (irrespective of ending up in Hell).

I'm just being honest. These systems were reinforced over time because they were seen as necessary to preserving that code. True hegemony doesn't need force, it has something more powerful... obedience.


The simple fact is that societies are more moral under said systems. Despite your bold statements about your own untouchable morality, the simple fact is that societies as a whole do not work that way. So whether you really are that moral or not is irrelevant. Religion isn't made for you or any one man. It is for whole civilizations or if you believe then it is for all humanity. Either way it presents a powerful moral code that is not easily violated without generating guilt or fear in the minds of the society as a whole. Over all this is fine as the rules being set down aren't the sort of things you want people to violate anyway. Don't murder people, don't steal, don't make a nuisance of yourself.

It's all rather basic and whether god handed it down or not it's a very good way to fill a specific aspect of any society.

(additional note - I disagree with GWB's decision, but I'm not claiming he committed an absolute moral wrong when he made it. I wouldn't want to be the one to have to make that kind of decision.)

what exactly do you mean?
==============================

Sorry, you're wrong.

You must be in possession of special information, because most historical scholars agree that he was a real person. They don't say he was the Son of God or performed any miracles, but they do concede that he was a real person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
I don't know why you have a hard time conceding this point... it proves nothing against the atheist cause one way or the other.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

 

[Repo Man]

That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called Ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian"

The whole conception of a God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men.... We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian"

The real enemy is dogma. Religion, certainly the Christian one anyway, reinforces dogmatic certainty, groupthink, persecution of outsiders. The balance sheet for the overall effect of these dark superstitions is overwhelmingly negative.

 

[SnakeLord]

You must be in possession of special information, because most historical scholars agree that he was a real person. They don't say he was the Son of God or performed any miracles, but they do concede that he was a real person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
I don't know why you have a hard time conceding this point... it proves nothing against the atheist cause one way or the other

I think you missed what I said 'You're wrong' to. The claim was that "no major archaeological society disagrees with this point [that jesus was a real person]". That is not factual.

That some Historians assume a real jesus might have existed, doesn't negate my disagreement with the posters claim.

The site you link to states: "The primary source of historical knowledge about Jesus is contained within the Christian Gospels, as many historians believe them to have originated from sources written within living memory of Jesus. Evidence for a historical Jesus is also provided by the Epistles, especially those by Paul."

This is very much akin to saying that something is true because it says it is. By this same token one could claim anything existed, from bigfoot to Thor.

However, people can believe as they wish, I was just pointing out that there's error with the posters quote.

K?

 

[Athelwulf]

It's nice to see that my thread is a hit.

Karmashock,

Atheists will not get a place in any heaven. They get oblivion. Whether there is a God(s) or not... none of them will give the Atheists anything.

True, but that doesn't mean we're not perhaps the most deserving.

I don't say that to be derisive to atheists, you're welcome to your belief system. But you're certainly not going to get a spot in paradise for defaming God.

Do you know what "defame" means? Dictionary.com's definition for "defame" says, "To damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel."

Water,

Athelwulf,

Do you believe in heaven?

If you are an atheist, I'd say you don't believe in heaven.

But how then can you say

"It seems that the selfish people in this equation — the religious — will in fact lose their spot in Heaven, while the true humanitarians — the Atheists — will take their spot."

-- this testifies of a belief in heaven.

If you are an atheist and don't believe in heaven, why then say that you might end up there?

I don't believe in Heaven. It's just a food-for-thought, matter-of-fact thing that popped into my head. The whole post was in a "Let's-just-assume-Heaven-exists-for-a-moment" tone. I hope it was noticeable.

Okinrus,

Athelwulf, not to expect anything is what Jesus said. You can argue this point if you want, but the facts are the notion of grace avoids this thought, at least for the long term. But sometimes, and this shouldn't happen to option, you will attempt to rationalize doing something wrong, and in the spur of the moment it's useful to accept purely on benefits of following God.

Mind rephrasing that so I can understand what ye'r going on about?

 

[audible]

“

But then the question becomes "Why believe?"
And "Why should others believe?"

Try and answer those without starting from the assumption that God exists.

Makes societies stronger... cultures stronger... makes organizing and keeping order easier... answers a lot of questions that can't be answered...

There are millions of reasons religion is positive even if god doesn't exist. Societies without religion have a vacuum and are open to exterior forces that do have them.

People like to believe… so you might as well have them believe in something positive.

so what your saying karma, is unless society is delusional it can not function.

Merely that societies need identities that cold soulless nihilism can't give them. Such systems have societies that fall apart. There is no group identity and so people just act in their own best interest. This has much the same effect as every cell in your body deciding to do what is personally best for it. You'd cease to be a human being after about 2 minutes.

You need something to hold society together...

so as I understand it unless society has a god to follow then it will fall apart, have you forgotten japan, china, korea, etc

if you look at what neocons do, all of it reinforces social and cultural identity.

neocon do the opposite to that, they cause derision, and mistrust, these are not things, that hold a society together, but makes it's people distrust others, just like macarthyism, in th 50's

You may and likely do disagree with said policies, but at least with this prism you might begin to understand them. For well over 50 years there has been a growing feelings that the very core of this civilization has been unraveling. The above actions are being taken to rewind the system and perhaps even make it self winding into the future.

and the core problem is religion, (karma:you have it all arse about face(back to front))

The point is that you must at all times avoid extremes. Extremes are nearly always bad. a society with no professed identity, if taken to an extreme, has no group identity and ceases to be a group. On the flip side, a society with too strong an identity become a mere puppet to that vision and so cannot adapt, grow, or innovate. Humans are attracted to absolutes for some reason, but it almost always leads to our ruin.

We must thread the needle. I think most of the comments that have been made in this forum are correct, but only to an extent. As nearly any social property approaches the absolute, it becomes increasingly unstable and destructive. I can't at the moment think of anything that is good in the absolute. the philosophers of the west call this moderation... the philosophers of the east call it balance. Call it what you will, absolutes are nearly always to be avoided.

yes agreed we must get rid of the religious fundamentists, the hard liners, the neocons, and perhaps society will triumph in the end.

 

[Ozymandias]

Why do religious people life a moral life? I'm sure they give many reasons, but I'll bet their only real reason is that they want to be in their religion's version of Heaven for all eternity. Some probably don't care about being good just for the hell of it. They just know that that's how to get into Heaven. They're taking advantage of a bribe.

It is ridiculous to assert that every person of a religious faith adheres to their beliefs because of this. I'm sure that some people do exist that conduct themselves in a moral manner out of fear, but there are also people who hold great disdain for people who do not find intrinsic good in morality.

So why do Atheists live a moral life? They have no incentive to do so; they believe that they're just gonna rot in the ground when they're dead, and that that's the end of it. They have no Sky-Daddy or -Mommy to please, and no Heaven to spend eternity in. But they live a moral life because they believe it's just a good thing to do. They're living moral lives just for the hell of it. They have no need for bribery.

Every atheist lives a moral life? I doubt that there is any group of people in which every member lives a truly moral life. There will be religious people who break their morals, and there will be atheists that break their morals. Yes, it is true that the atheists are probably not motivated to live morally out of fear of a supreme being raining down brimstone upon them for immoral actions, but it is ridiculous to say that every person who subscribes to a religious faith and lives morally does so out of fear.

So it seems that the religious, even if they think they're living a moral life only because it's nice, are being selfish in that they just want a spot in that cloud up over there. Atheists, on the other hand, don't think they're gonna be rewarded for their morality for eternity after they're dead, but it doesn't matter to them. They still are gonna live a moral life.

How is it that they're being selfish? If their actions will get them a ticket to Heaven, how is that being selfish (and immoral)? What about evangelicals? They try to get people to live morally so that they will live in Heaven after death too! How is that selfish?

It seems that the selfish people in this equation — the religious — will in fact lose their spot in Heaven, while the true humanitarians — the Atheists — will take their spot.

It's funny that you see all religious people as selfish and all atheists as humanitarians (almost as funny as you capitalizing atheists and not religious).

 

[Athelwulf]

Ozymandias,

It is ridiculous to assert that every person of a religious faith adheres to their beliefs because of this. I'm sure that some people do exist that conduct themselves in a moral manner out of fear, but there are also people who hold great disdain for people who do not find intrinsic good in morality.

Every atheist lives a moral life? I doubt that there is any group of people in which every member lives a truly moral life. There will be religious people who break their morals, and there will be atheists that break their morals. Yes, it is true that the atheists are probably not motivated to live morally out of fear of a supreme being raining down brimstone upon them for immoral actions, but it is ridiculous to say that every person who subscribes to a religious faith and lives morally does so out of fear.

I admit I should have worded my post differently. I'm sure there are exceptions.

How is it that they're being selfish? If their actions will get them a ticket to Heaven, how is that being selfish (and immoral)?

The bribe in and of itself doesn't make them selfish. They're selfish if they actually take advantage of the bribe.

What about evangelicals? They try to get people to live morally so that they will live in Heaven after death too! How is that selfish?

Maybe they're not entirely selfish in that sense, but they're selfish in another sense. Most evangelicals think that their religion is the "correct" one, and that everyone must share that religion. They think they're right and anyone else that doesn't agree with them is wrong. So they're still selfish.

It's funny that you see all religious people as selfish and all atheists as humanitarians (almost as funny as you capitalizing atheists and not religious).

I don't see all religious people as selfish and all Atheists as humanitarians. That was my faulty wording to which I've already admited.

I don't capitalize "religious" kuz it's a generic term. For the same reason, I wouldn't, and don't, capitalize "nonreligious". I capitalize "Atheist" kuz it's a specific term. I would, and do, for the same reason capitalize "Christian" or "Jew" or "Buddhist".

 

[Ozymandias]

I admit I should have worded my post differently. I'm sure there are exceptions.

Ah, okay. That makes sense, then.

The bribe in and of itself doesn't make them selfish. They're selfish if they actually take advantage of the bribe.

I don't quite understand what you're saying. How are they taking advantage of the bribe? I believe it is immoral to do moral things if they are being done only to get a ticket to Heaven. Is that what you mean?

Maybe they're not entirely selfish in that sense, but they're selfish in another sense. Most evangelicals think that their religion is the "correct" one, and that everyone must share that religion. They think they're right and anyone else that doesn't agree with them is wrong. So they're still selfish.

Is there anyone who believes that everyone is right? I don't see how it is selfish to believe in one thing so fervently that you are intolerant of other beliefs. It's possible to still have regard and concern for other people, even if you believe that the system they follow is ridiculous.

I don't see all religious people as selfish and all Atheists as humanitarians. That was my faulty wording to which I've already admited.

I understand. Thanks for the clarification!

I suppose entrance into Heaven here depends on your beliefs. I'm pretty sure that, to enter a Christian Heaven, you not only need to live a relatively moral life but you must also believe in the essential Christian tenets of faith. This would make it impossible for the most humanitarian and righteous Atheist to get into Heaven.

I don't capitalize "religious" kuz it's a generic term. For the same reason, I wouldn't, and don't, capitalize "nonreligious". I capitalize "Atheist" kuz it's a specific term. I would, and do, for the same reason capitalize "Christian" or "Jew" or "Buddhist".

I see. I have just run into so many people that, out of a lack of respect for religions, refuse to capitalize any of them. I thought you were the same way. I apologize for making a hasty conclusion.

 

[Athelwulf]

Ozymandias,

I don't quite understand what you're saying. How are they taking advantage of the bribe? I believe it is immoral to do moral things if they are being done only to get a ticket to Heaven. Is that what you mean?

Yes.

Is there anyone who believes that everyone is right?

No, but there are people that don't impose their beliefs on others.

I don't see how it is selfish to believe in one thing so fervently that you are intolerant of other beliefs. It's possible to still have regard and concern for other people, even if you believe that the system they follow is ridiculous.

The problem is that they actively try to make everyone's beliefs match theirs.

I understand. Thanks for the clarification!

No problem.

I suppose entrance into Heaven here depends on your beliefs. I'm pretty sure that, to enter a Christian Heaven, you not only need to live a relatively moral life but you must also believe in the essential Christian tenets of faith. This would make it impossible for the most humanitarian and righteous Atheist to get into Heaven.

True, but the point of my post is to show that some Atheists are just as deserving of Heaven as Christians (although my original wording doesn't show that very clearly ).

I see. I have just run into so many people that, out of a lack of respect for religions, refuse to capitalize any of them. I thought you were the same way. I apologize for making a hasty conclusion.

 

[Ozymandias]

Yes.

In that case, I don't believe that those people will be getting into Heaven anyway.

No, but there are people that don't impose their beliefs on others.

Isn't it vital to make a distinction between people who are trying to expose other people to what they believe is good and right and those who intimidate others into their religion for power? I don't see immorality in telling other people "look, this is great!" I <i>do</i> see immorality in "this is my religion, it is now yours unless you want to die."

The problem is that they actively try to make everyone's beliefs match theirs.

They are doing what they believe is right. Is it right to tell someone who is knee-deep in evil acts to live a moral life? Isn't that imposing your beliefs on someone else?

True, but the point of my post is to show that some Atheists are just as deserving of Heaven as Christians (although my original wording doesn't show that very clearly ).

Maybe better wording would be that atheists can be as moral, if not moreso, than Christians? Involving Heaven has clearly caused <a href="http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44589"> some confusion. </a>

 

[Light Travelling]

So what of morality? We are animals like any other animal.

Is it immoral for two animals to kill each other? No.

Is it immoral for me (an animal) to kill another human animal? Absolutely not.

What morality - be nice to each other - why so we can get a meal (job/ work). So we can reproduce and make more animals.

We do what any other animal does to survive for a few short years and reproduce and continue our evolutionary line. (all functions and feelings are genetically encoded)

We only act in a nice way to F***, feed or find shelter. Or impress others with our seemingly nice actions to achieve the same results.

It is not immoral to kill, steal or rape. I dont know where you get this crap from - we are animals, slightly more intelligent than monkeys. Stop deluding yourselves we are anything more.

 

[mustafhakofi]

So what of morality? We are animals like any other animal.

have you actually read athuls opening post.

Is it immoral for two animals to kill each other? No.

as they know no better.

Is it immoral for me (an animal) to kill another human animal? Absolutely not.

of course not, as you know better.

What morality - be nice to each other - why so we can get a meal (job/ work). So we can reproduce and make more animals.

no just because it's nice to be nice, it take less facial muscles to smile, then it does to frown.

We do what any other animal does to survive for a few short years and reproduce and continue our evolutionary line. (all functions and feelings are genetically encoded)

exactly, that's the meaning of life, to propagate the species.

We only act in a nice way to F***, feed or find shelter. Or impress others with our seemingly nice actions to achieve the same results.

yes some of them are decieving, but I have'nt met to many.

It is not immoral to kill, steal or rape. I dont know where you get this crap from - we are animals, slightly more intelligent than monkeys. Stop deluding yourselves we are anything more.

drugs
sex
self mutilation
suicide
masturbation
altruism
selfishness
greed
wealth
money
homosexuality

None of these things are immoral. None of these things are evil.

murder
discrimination
malice
destruction
collectivism
domination
rape
stealing

These things are immoral.

The only thing that can be immoral is that which harms another. Anything one does for oneself or to oneself cannot be immoral, unless it harms another as a direct and intentional result.

Furthermore, nothing that one cannot control can be immoral. One cannot be immoral because they are a particular race. One cannot be immoral because other people like them have been immoral. One cannot be immoral because they were brought up in wealth. One cannot be immoral for disliking the taste of asparagus. One cannot be immoral for being homosexual.

Having an ego is moral. Thinking you are good is moral. Being wealthy is moral. Being powerful is moral. It is what you do with these things that is immoral.l

 

[cole grey]

selfishness and greed are moral, altruism is immoral? What?
Selfishness and greed are very often the cause of rape, murder, discrimination, malice, domination, and stealing.
What immoral thing does altruism cause?
Weakness? That is a lame duck.